Missing news story

Surely if it were materially wrong or the story was in any way false Autosport would not only have been requested to remove the article but also publish an apology and explanation?As there has been no apology or clarification in any way I think it is safe to say there was nothing materially wrong with the article and the only reason it was removed is that it caused embarresment to someone.

And to be honest it's that possibility that concerns me most. The idea that Autosport pulled a story that was materially true, accurately quoted and sourced, yet pulled it under pressure from McLaren is more than a little alarming. It's not even like the story was that big a deal.

Editorial independence is critical to readers being able to trust what they're reading.

With your other alternatives dismissed, this would lean towards you thinking Autosport having made a mistake? How do you rhyme that with Nobles tweet it was pulled on request and no further comment?But, again, if both parties stay silent, well never know. At least its good we are allowed to talk about it on the Autosport Forums.

(Quote abridged for brevity and clarity)I square the hypothesis of Autosport being wrong with Noble's tweet by making the, to me obvious, deduction that the inaccuracy may have been brought to Autosport's attention by some communication that may have been along the lines of; "That's b*ll*cks, I never said that. If you don't do something pronto, you will be hearing from my lawyers."

But we have a direct message from one of the Autosport corresponders in the name of Noble that someone had asked to remove it.

So, third and fourth options, as you put them, are the most likely ones now that we know there was a request (I'm pretty sure it came from McLaren).

Please see above.

And to be honest it's that possibility that concerns me most. The idea that Autosport pulled a story that was materially true, accurately quoted and sourced, yet pulled it under pressure from McLaren is more than a little alarming. It's not even like the story was that big a deal.

Editorial independence is critical to readers being able to trust what they're reading.

This is the possibility I find most disturbing as well. A genuine error is excusable, a rogue journalist who faked a story can (and should) be dealt with, but editorial independence cannot be compromised without losing credibility. Without credibility, what value does a journalistic publication have?

Negative. Article is still circulating through the universe. McLaren should have acted by now to remove them.

I would have thought that the Max Mosley/News of the World story or the Wikileaks saga would have demonstrated that it is not that easy to have a story expunged from the internet, and that the veracity of the story is not related to its tenacity.

(Quote abridged for brevity and clarity)I square the hypothesis of Autosport being wrong with Noble's tweet by making the, to me obvious, deduction that the inaccuracy may have been brought to Autosport's attention by some communication that may have been along the lines of; "That's b*ll*cks, I never said that. If you don't do something pronto, you will be hearing from my lawyers."

Please see above.

This is the possibility I find most disturbing as well. A genuine error is excusable, a rogue journalist who faked a story can (and should) be dealt with, but editorial independence cannot be compromised without losing credibility. Without credibility, what value does a journalistic publication have?

I would have thought that the Max Mosley/News of the World story or the Wikileaks saga would have demonstrated that it is not that easy to have a story expunged from the internet, and that the veracity of the story is not related to its tenacity.

What saddens me about this situation - is that the Autosport team is in the business of words. It would have been easy to craft something with a tone that would have at leased eased the concerns somewhat. For example:

"We've seen the posts regarding the story that was pulled and we're sorry that there have been concerns raised. We can't discuss why the story was pulled for legal reasons, but we've taken on board your comments, and we'll do our best to make sure that this kind of thing never happens again"

...or something along those lines.

If the Autosport.com team don't answer to their readership, who do they answer to?

If it helps, I've read every single message posted here. It that doesn't help, I'm sorry, I can't do much more. It's frustrating for everybody, especially seeing all the conspiracy theories. There's not much else we can say apart from what Jon wrote in his tweet.

And that was a tweet.

Why do you not then post exactly that as a written story, since it is a written story we do not understand was pulled as if it never happened?

You may have read every single post, I am concerned that this leaves you of the opinion that 'Autosport' have clarified anything, as on the contrary all 'Autosport' have done is muddle the waters further, thus leaving the ground fertile for all sorts of conspiracies.

A 'drunk' emoticon from 'Autosport' is really a poor manner in how to comment, you should leave that to us the fanboys, and act as the professional you supposedly are.

Until a clear answer is posted here, preferably on the frontpage as well, we are none the wiser and you can have a thread living a life of multiple theories as to why 'Autosport' will not comment, right now I am personally thinking that you have somewhat dented your crediability and integrity, which is a shame as I do consider Autosport as The F1 and Autoracing news-source.

Not my call, I'm afraid. I wasn't even working on the day it happened, and I'm just trying to show I care about what readers think even if my/our hands are tied.

As for...

This is an internet forum, and I'm not posting any official statements. It's not my job to respond here. I do it because I want to and I see it only makes things worse.

If you are here unofficially you should not be posting with a tag 'autosport.com news editor', which is what lead me to think that you are actually replying on behalf of 'Autosport', the fact that you are not then mean that 'Autosport' have said zero, and if I read you correctly have zero intention of making any sort of comment or attempt to clarify the fact that they publish stories, drag them back and do not make any comments as to why that was.

So we are back where you left it.

Nothing from anyone, and a fertile ground for all sorts of theories.

And mind you, now that you have outed yourself as just a poster, then you words mean that 'something' is afoot.

....my/our hands are tied...

Since 'Autosport' have no intention of clarifying anything, I suggest that you should not have posted what you did. But that is just my personal opinion.

Not my call, I'm afraid. I wasn't even working on the day it happened, and I'm just trying to show I care about what readers think even if my/our hands are tied.

As for...

This is an internet forum, and I'm not posting any official statements. It's not my job to respond here. I do it because I want to and I see it only makes things worse.

I don't think your replies are making matters worse. I think most of us appreciate that you are posting here in a personal capacity and yet are still constrained in what and how you can comment.

You're not exactly clarifying things, either, though.

Some of us, at least, would be reassured if you were able to assure us that Autosport acted, whether or not with external influence/compulsion/instigation, as a result of professional integrity rather than expedience.

I don't think your replies are making matters worse. I think most of us appreciate that you are posting here in a personal capacity and yet are still constrained in what and how you can comment.

I don't think it's appreciated, no. All I wanted is to try to get people to understand that Jon's tweet is the best you will get, as far as I know. I can't not post as "autosport.com's news editor" (that's not even my title, btw), but I do work here and I thought hearing it from me would help. It didn't, so be it.

I don't think it's appreciated, no. All I wanted is to try to get people to understand that Jon's tweet is the best you will get, as far as I know. I can't not post as "autosport.com's new editor" (that's not even my title, btw), but I do work here and I thought hearing it from me would help. It didn't, so be it.

This is the possibility I find most disturbing as well. A genuine error is excusable, a rogue journalist who faked a story can (and should) be dealt with, but editorial independence cannot be compromised without losing credibility. Without credibility, what value does a journalistic publication have?

If this was the case and I were Mr. McGrath, I would be furious and without delay issued a statement condemning the story.

The story just being pulled would not be satisfactory as it would leave room for too much speculation. Mr. McGrath's silence and the fact that Whiting is headed to Jerez to address rule infractions (as Bunk has astutely pointed out) would indicate that the story was indeed valid imo.

I don't think it's appreciated, no. All I wanted is to try to get people to understand that Jon's tweet is the best you will get, as far as I know. I can't not post as "autosport.com's new editor" (that's not even my title, btw), but I do work here and I thought hearing it from me would help. It didn't, so be it.

I did write "most of us appreciate", perhaps I should have written "some of us". There are some who have no interest in the reality of the situation, they simply want to use it to further their own arguments. Did your responses on this thread help? To some of us, yes. It is evidence that Autosport staff at least pay attention to us, even when they aren't doing what we hope. To others, no, but you can't please everybody.

If this was the case and I were Mr. McGrath, I would be furious and without delay issued a statement condemning the story.

You might, but not everybody thinks like you.

The story just being pulled would not be satisfactory as it would leave room for too much speculation. Mr. McGrath's silence and the fact that Whiting is headed to Jerez to address rule infractions (as Bunk has astutely pointed out) would indicate that the story was indeed valid imo.

So you would draw attention to the story. That rarely succeeds in quashing speculation. I refer you to Hacker's First Law of Politics.

I don't think it's appreciated, no. All I wanted is to try to get people to understand that Jon's tweet is the best you will get, as far as I know. I can't not post as "autosport.com's new editor" (that's not even my title, btw), but I do work here and I thought hearing it from me would help. It didn't, so be it.

It is appreciated, even if I think the drunk emoticon is a bit misplaced (eventhough I think there was no ill intent) when readers are genuinly shocked/suprised/alarmed at what happened last week.

At least it points out that this thread is being followed with interest, and frustration is you and your colleagues part that you cannot explain it any further than Nobles quote.

I still think its disrespectful to readers and subscribers. It is very unlike Autosport. You dont bite the hand that feeds you, was your tweet last week. The readers and subscribers are the ones that get you and your colleagues paid.

I don't think it's appreciated, no. All I wanted is to try to get people to understand that Jon's tweet is the best you will get, as far as I know. I can't not post as "autosport.com's new editor" (that's not even my title, btw), but I do work here and I thought hearing it from me would help. It didn't, so be it.

I think it matters, and for those of us that still care we can see clearly enough that you're trying to do the right thing in a situation, that to me, seems very difficult.

- Noble tweets the article was pulled on request
- Eli tweets in this regard that you dont bite the hand that feeds you

So if it stayed on, it would have pissed somebody off really well, enough that Autosport fears for not being fed anymore.

Hmm.

Then Autosport refuses to mention it ever happened, giving indication somebody wants to never be referred to that article again.

Who exactly within Mclaren is such a control freak that all these strings are being pulled?

- Withmarsh? Unlikely. Seems like a very down to earth guy, much more open than his predecessor, much less neurotic.
- Matt Bishop? Unlikely. Why would Bishop put his good relations with Autosport on the line, by frustrating them into doing this embarrassing act, and then decline to even comment further? Maybe he did the formal request, but most probably did that on orders.
- McGrath? Unlikely. Youd expect a managing director to have the brains to choose his words carefully, especially against an Autosport author. He gave that interview fully knowing it would be published, and probably never thought it pissed off somebody higher up the Mclaren ladder.

Not necessarily. If Whitmarsh is a ruthless press manipulator then of course he'd look down-to-earth in his brief TV interviews.

I imagine this is a result of Mclaren's press attack-dogs (or should that be dog-handlers?) having kept one area of the organisation -- the race team -- under much closer watch than the others. The company is growing quickly and will make mistakes. This interview, which seems to have come from an upper management layer and was conducted by a non-racing journalist, seems like it wasn't intended for Autosport's pages at all.

Ultimately I suppose that Mclaren may not see an independent, opinionated and aggressive motorsport press as in its interests. This is a bit of a shame as compared to many teams on the grid it would probably come out smelling quite fresh.

- Noble tweets the article was pulled on request- Eli tweets in this regard that you dont bite the hand that feeds you

So if it stayed on, it would have pissed somebody off really well, enough that Autosport fears for not being fed anymore.

Hmm.

Then Autosport refuses to mention it ever happened, giving indication somebody wants to never be referred to that article again.

Who exactly within Mclaren is such a control freak that all these strings are being pulled?

- Withmarsh? Unlikely. Seems like a very down to earth guy, much more open than his predecessor, much less neurotic.- Matt Bishop? Unlikely. Why would Bishop put his good relations with Autosport on the line, by frustrating them into doing this embarrassing act, and then decline to even comment further? Maybe he did the formal request, but most probably did that on orders.- McGrath? Unlikely. Youd expect a managing director to have the brains to choose his words carefully, especially against an Autosport author. He gave that interview fully knowing it would be published, and probably never thought it pissed off somebody higher up the Mclaren ladder.

So I think it must be someone very high up the ladder at Mclaren.

Someone high enough up the ladder to keep the Managing Director McGrath quiet as well.

Everyone claimed to know after it went public. Sure everyone, fans included, had suspicions but journos claiming they knew but didn't report it need to start doing their jobs. If they just assumed but had no knowledge they should keep it to themselves.

ok, I also 'knew' when it happened but I didn't know. Was that the gist of it, or was he saying that Nelsinho or someone else had told him directly?

I didn't realize that you, like me, were a conspiracy theorist jcbc3. However, exactly that, he was told that day having also believed it to be the case at the time of the incident. I know that he mentioned something in his column the week after the race which you had to read between the lines, which I looked for briefly today. I have 20 years of Autosport here but wasn't able to find it, (too busy following testing), as I knew the date of issue of that one. Where he actually says he was told, was a year or so later, so I'm not sure of the date. Unfortunately the magazine database only goes back to the beginning of 2010 so I would need to find the magazine.